T 0319/06 () of 6.2.2007

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2007:T031906.20070206
Date of decision: 06 February 2007
Case number: T 0319/06
Application number: 96903854.6
IPC class: G10L 19/04
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: C
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.722K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Depth-first algebraic-codebook search for fast coding of speech
Applicant name: Université de Sherbrooke
Opponent name: Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson (publ)
Board: 3.4.01
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 108
European Patent Convention 1973 R 65(1)
Keywords: Appeal inadmissible


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal contests the decision of the opposition division, dispatched on 21 December 2005, rejecting the oppositions against European patent No. 0 813 736 (application number 96903854.6).

The appellant (opponent I, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson) filed a notice of appeal by a letter received on 21 February 2006 and paid the fee for the appeal on the same day.

No statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed within the time limit of four months prescribed by Article 108 EPC. The notice of appeal contained nothing that could be considered as such a statement.

II. By a communication dated 4 July 2006 sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the registry of the board informed the appellant that no written statement of grounds of appeal had been filed and that, therefore, it was to be expected that the appeal be rejected as inadmissible (Article 108 EPC and Rule 65(1) EPC). The appellant was invited to file observations within two months from notification of the communication. Moreover, the appellant's attention was drawn to Rule 84a EPC, to the decision of the President of the EPO dated 11 December 1998 (OJ EPO 1999, 45) and to Article 122 EPC.

III. The appellant filed no observations in response to the communication.

Reasons for the Decision

As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed within the time limit provided by Article 108 EPC in conjunction with Rule 78(2) EPC, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Rule 65(1) EPC).


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation